It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

page: 20
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Really? What's the difference in consciously deciding to make the womb a hostile environment for the fertilized egg, or medically removing it from the uterine sidewall? Is it more human once it attaches?

Double standard much?


Prevention is not the same. If you can't reasonably see that, then there is no use in conversing further about it.




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by queenofswords
 



Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use.”
www.epm.org...


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.


You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by Bone75
How many times do you guys need to have the concept of conception explained to you?


Conception is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. That doesn't 100% mean a future baby because it only becomes viable once implanted on the uterine walls.

When you have a fertilized chicken egg do you call it a chicken already? Or do you call it an embryo or fetus inside of the egg? When an apple tree is pollinated do you automatically call them apples or just blossoms?


During all but one of my children's pregnancies, I would sing songs and read books to them. I can tell you from my own experience that those babies did backflips to the sound of my voice. Chicken eggs don't do that, neither do apples, nor parasites, nor mindless clumps of cells.


Fetuses develop ears between the 8th and 16th weeks of pregnancy but do not process sounds or "hear" until they are around 18 weeks along which I'm pretty sure is past the point of legal abortion. I'm talking about conception which is a zygote still replicating and combining DNA that couldn't tell the difference between you singing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star or Old McDonald.


Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by Bone75
How many times do you guys need to have the concept of conception explained to you?


Conception is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. That doesn't 100% mean a future baby because it only becomes viable once implanted on the uterine wall.


So now you're judge, jury, and fortune teller? Lottery numbers please.


There's nothing magic about what I said. It is basic Biology.

When a sperm fertilizes an egg it doesn't just float there in the womb where it happened. It has to then attach to the endometrial walls of the uterus so it can develop the placenta and receive nutrients from the mother.

If it does not attach to the wall the fertilized egg never develops into an embryo/fetus and is removed from the body through menstruation.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.


You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.


It all comes back to the life argument and what constitutes life. If you can allow for these contraceptives then I can't understand someone arguing staunchly against abortion when they do the same thing.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.


You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.


It all comes back to the life argument and what constitutes life. If you can allow for these contraceptives then I can't understand someone arguing staunchly against abortion when they do the same thing.


If you're going to debate me, then debate ME. I've already told you twice that I DO NOT APPROVE OF CONTRACEPTIVES THAT HARM FERTILIZED EGGS.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.


You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.


It all comes back to the life argument and what constitutes life. If you can allow for these contraceptives then I can't understand someone arguing staunchly against abortion when they do the same thing.


If you're going to debate me, then debate ME. I've already told you twice that I DO NOT APPROVE OF CONTRACEPTIVES THAT HARM FERTILIZED EGGS.


And if you look, I wasn't responding to one of your posts originally but another member's (unless of course you are also queenofwords). I have no idea why you are jumping down my throat. I have no doubt what your belief is on the matter of contraceptives as you've stated them plainly all over this thread.
edit on 11/11/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


It's not all about you, and every reply in this thread isn't directed at you. We aren't sitting on the edge of chairs, continually hitting the refresh button, to see what YOU have to say.

The reply was directed to a newcomer to the thread, who didn't see to the previous introduction of contraceptive facts, several pages back. This is obviously because she thought they were "preventative" measures.

Like I said earlier, "If you have a problem with contraceptives that cause spontaneous abortions, take it up with the AMA." There is no middle ground on this. The "life begins at conception" road easily becomes a slippery, muddy slope.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.


You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.


It all comes back to the life argument and what constitutes life. If you can allow for these contraceptives then I can't understand someone arguing staunchly against abortion when they do the same thing.


If you're going to debate me, then debate ME. I've already told you twice that I DO NOT APPROVE OF CONTRACEPTIVES THAT HARM FERTILIZED EGGS.


And if you look, I wasn't responding to one of your posts originally but another member's (unless of course you are also queenofwords). I have no idea why you are jumping down my throat. I have no doubt what your belief is on the matter of contraceptives as you've stated them plainly all over this thread.
edit on 11/11/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)


Well I apologize for the misunderstanding, but you did respond to me, not her. When I went back and read her original comment again, I realized that I overlooked a small detail that contradicts my position. When I said that no one else in this conversation approved of contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, I was wrong.
*Opens mouth and inserts foot*



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


Just to make it clear I was replying to queenofwords but you were the one who responded to my post to her and THEN I responded to yours in response... which is almost as confusing as this thread itself.


It is easy in the heat of debate (or argument) to overlook these things. I am guilty of it too.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
 


The "life begins at conception" road easily becomes a slippery, muddy slope.


The "life begins at birth" road has already become a slippery, bloody slope.

The moment of conception and the moment of death are the only possible places to draw a line between a man's existence and his non-existence. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
edit on 11-11-2012 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
After this comment, I will bow out of this conversation.

It is a true conundrum. While life starts at conception in the most basic definition, pregnancy does not begin until the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterus.

Birth control such as IUDs prevent pregnancy. For me personally, once a woman is pregnant, she becomes responsible for the nurturing of that life and responsible for bringing it into the world.

To consciously make the decision to destroy it and terminate the pregnancy is repulsive to me.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 





The moment of conception and the moment of death are the only possible places to draw a line between a man's existence and his non-existence. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?


No! No!

The moment of birth, when one draws their first breath. You know, their birthday? The day that is written on that thing called a "Birth Certificate?" That is beginning of ones existence into this existence.


edit on 11-11-2012 by windword because: repetitive existence, dull grammar, but, oh well. To make a point.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
 





The moment of conception and the moment of death are the only possible places to draw a line between a man's existence and his non-existence. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?


No! No!

The moment of birth, when one draws their first breath. You know, their birthday? The day that is written on that thing called a "Birth Certificate?" That is beginning of ones existence into this society.


You added "into this society" because without it, your statement wouldn't be true.


My statement is truth.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


Noted. Edited and fixed!




My statement is truth.


Not any more!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Now let's talk about that picture for a minute and compare what you can plainly see with your own eyes to what's coming out of your mouth (I know, its another metaphor).

First a little about the picture, and by the way, thank you GideonFaith for sharing this in another thread.

The hand in the picture is that of Samual Armas at 21 weeks from the moment of his conception. He is undergoing surgery to correct his spina bifida, while still in his mother's womb.

Your entire argument is that life begins upon birth and the first breath...

So by your logic, when Samual gets older and someone asks him if he's ever had surgery...

he should say no?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by windword
 


Now let's talk about that picture for a minute and compare what you can plainly see with your own eyes to what's coming out of your mouth (I know, its another metaphor).

First a little about the picture, and by the way, thank you GideonFaith for sharing this in another thread.

The hand in the picture is that of Samual Armas at 21 weeks from the moment of his conception. He is undergoing surgery to correct his spina bifida, while still in his mother's womb.

Your entire argument is that life begins upon birth and the first breath...

So by your logic, when Samual gets older and someone asks him if he's ever had surgery...

he should say no?




You welcome Bone75. Anytime.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


I thought you might would like to see what the miracle of uterine surgery done for Samuel.


up.arabseyes.com...

I don't get how anyone can say it's not human life or a human being.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join